Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

darthcamaro writes "A lot of people in the US have not seen a use case for the use of IPv6 yet, since we've got plenty of IPv4 addresses. But what happens when the entire electrical grid gets smart? The so-called Smart Grid will need a networking transport mechanism that will connect potentially hundreds of millions of people and devices. Networking giant Cisco sees IP (internet protocol) as the right transport and IPv6 as the logical choice for addressing. 'Pv6 is an interesting discussion and one that occupies a lot of bandwidth at Cisco,' Marie Hattar, Cisco's vice president of network systems and security solutions marketing said. 'Some people say that for smaller deployments, we could get away with IPv4, but the smart grid has a number of parts. The point is that if you're looking to build this [smart grid] out, why not build it out on the scalable protocol from the get-go?'"

I doubt its IPv6, but it would be a logical thing to do simply because of network addressing.

They might be using IPv6 soon enough, check out 6lopan [wikipedia.org], an IETF group working towards getting IPv6 working on low-power networking devices like Xbee modems, etc. IEEE 802.15 transceivers are low-power, will mesh easily, and are very common in power meters.

Having global addressability saves a lot of hassle, and should not be confused with global reachability. Seems to make a lot of sense to me.

Contiki has an IPv6 stack now. The uIPv6 stack is not tied to Contiki, and can easily be run elsewhere, as long as you have 11KB of ROM and 2KB of RAM spare for it (35KB of ROM and 3KB of RAM for Contiki with uIPv6), and will run happily on something like a 6502. Of course, for serious use and some buffers for large-packet reassembly, and some space for your application code, you probably want 64KB of RAM.

Smart meters are only part of the smart grid, although where they're being deployed it's considered essential to it. And the jury is still out as to how they're going to do the remote reading in many places - that will involve networking, and considering the millions of end points it may end up being a purpose-built protocol running across purpose-built hardware. IPV6 is all well and good and well thought out, but security is a big concern of the electricity companies and they're not entirely wedded to In

I'm working on smart grid stuff at the moment, and IPv6 is used. But these things are NOT connected to the network at large. These grids are all private networks, so it won't promote IPv6 stuff on the "public" internet, except perhaps to drive more sales of routers that have to understand IPv6.

Cisco is pretty much a latecomer to this arena from what I can see, hoping to leverage their router sales to utilities rather than let them be able to pick and choose the network infrastructure.

Also think about it. Do you realllllllllllllllllllly want your power grid to be tied to the real internet?

Well, maybe not, but there are still big advantages with using IPv6 even if it isn't on the public network. For example, you can use addresses that are guaranteed to be globally unique - this means no readdressing problems when you suddenly decide 2 completely independent networks need to talk to each other.

This is what has stunned me about the telephone industry - they are spending billions on replacing their antiquated SS7 networks with IMS networks. The IMS protocols were _designed_ to be run over IPv6 (but of course, IPv4 and IPv6 are so similar that they have actually been made to work on both), but most of the telcos are rolling out IPv4 networks. Nothing like spending vast amounts of money to replace one obsolete network with another.

IPv6 is an established and proven technology, there really aren't many good reasons not to use it in a new network.

IPV6 is a waste of time in the 'utility' market.

I'm not sure how it can be described as a "waste of time" since that would imply it would take longer to implement than an IPv4 network. If you're starting from scratch and not having to interoperate with the existing internet, an IPv6 network takes no more time to implement and is a bit of a no-brainer (getting a much more future-proofed network at almost the same cost). Unfortunately it seems that a lot of people in charge of such projects do indeed have no brains.

throw out routers? haven't ciscos been ipv6-capable for at least a decade now?

Pretty much (although you might have to buy a firmware upgrade... but then if you aren't running a recent firmware you're probably infested with security holes anyway).

those that aren't probably don't NEED to be, anyway.

That's rather untrue though. If you're going to deploy IPv6-only systems then *all* the routers on the network need to do IPv6. Yes, this even includes the home DSL routers, most of which currently on the market *still* have absolutely no IPv6 support, even though we only have about 2 years until IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses. Anything else is going to involve kludging things to work through IPv4 to IPv6 gateways, or tunnelling IPv6 over IPv4 to bypass the non-compliant devices.

The whole IPv4 address exhaustion problem is a really good example of people sticking their heads in the sane and hoping the problem goes away - most ISPs seem to not be interested in preparing their networks for IPv6 at all (PlusNet told me that they had no plans to roll out *any* IPv6 support over the next few years and EntaNet seem to have halted their IPv6 trials). Some time towards the end of 2011 there will be a "sky falling" moment similar to what we saw at Y2K when ISPs realise they are basically screwed and are going to have to do an expensive rush-job of deploying IPv6 over their networks in just a few short months.

not everything needs a world-wide public address. NAT 'security' is actually a Good Thing(tm).

Argh! Please will people stop spreading this crap. There is practically *no* security provided by a NAT. You get security from stateful packet inspection. NAT requires stateful packet inspection to work, but there is no significant security advantage (and many really serious operational disadvantages) provided by running NAT instead of just a stateful firewall. Also, most home NAT routers provide no stateful firewalling, only the limited stateful tracking required to make NAT work, and can therefore easily be bypassed by anyone on the upstream segment (which may be a few hundred random members of the public in the case of some cable setups).

Security is better served by doing proper stateful firewalling, and this is probably best achieved by removing NAT from the equation so that people don't have a false sense of security. Removing NAT also solves a lot of operational problems, as there are an increasing number of protocols that can't be made to work well through NAT (and whilst many people regard this as a flawed protocol design, there are sound reasons for designing these protocols in this way).

Security is better served by doing proper stateful firewalling, and this is probably best achieved by removing NAT from the equation so that people don't have a false sense of security.

Now that's just being silly. Most people aren't going to be influenced by such a lesson, because they fundamentally don't care about such issues. NAT is still a good thing, although I do agree with much else you say.

I disagree with your contention that most routers don't offer stateful firewalls; check the age of your information, most of them do now.

For my choice, I run a nice little NetGear wireless router at home. It's IPV4, uses NAT and includes a stateful firewall. (The router is quite good, but I'

Now that's just being silly. Most people aren't going to be influenced by such a lesson, because they fundamentally don't care about such issues.

They start to care after they lose all their data and pay for their computer to be cleaned of malware for the tenth time.

Car analogy alert: people don't care that putting diesel into their petrol car is bad. Oh wait, yes they do when they have to pay lots for it to be fixed.

Also, router manufacturers do have to build _some_ security into their products. They will always do the bare minimum they can get away with, but once you take away NAT, the bare minimum happens to be a hell of a lot better than what w

That's rather untrue though. If you're going to deploy IPv6-only systems then *all* the routers on the network need to do IPv6. Yes, this even includes the home DSL routers, most of which currently on the market *still* have absolutely no IPv6 support

Yeah, when ISPs actually do go IPv6 it will be a beautiful day for DD-WRT and OpenWRT. There will be whole businesses around reflashing those routers and reselling them, while most manufacturers will not release an update including IPv6.

There is practically *no* security provided by a NAT.

Unless your ISP is compromised, the combination of using non-routed addresses and dropping source routed frames (as everyone and their mom does by default) means that a NAT does provide some significant security. Attacks generally rely on packets reaching their destination.

Your ISP doesn't have to be compromised. Many cable systems are set up so that the cable segment is basically a bus and the cable modems are bridges. Anyone on that segment can adjust their routing appropriately.

Also, even if you're not on such a network I don't think it's a particularly good idea to trust that another party's network is secure.

the combination of using non-routed addresses and dropping source routed frames (as everyone and their mom does by default) means that a NAT does provide some significant security. Attacks generally rely on packets reaching their destination.

No... No it doesn't. The ability to track the state of all the connections and drop packets that don't belong to any that were established by a local machine gets

What's going to happen is that the internet is going to be broken up by country, so that each country will have its own set of IP addresses for IPv4. So, the people that want genuinely global internet coverage will get IPv6, but those of us who just want to be in one country can use the smaller, simpler and more efficient IPv4

What's going to happen is that the internet is going to be broken up by country, so that each country will have its own set of IP addresses for IPv4. So, the people that want genuinely global internet coverage will get IPv6, but those of us who just want to be in one country can use the smaller, simpler and more efficient IPv4

I think if that were to happen you'd very suddenly realise that a lot of the services you use aren't hosted in your own country and you'd be off to get yourself an IPv6 connection.... Frankly, I can't see that ever happening though.

Unfortunately there will be many public implementations of IPv4-IPv6 natting going on in 2010. This is an interim solution to eliminate the need for any IPv4 support on the client side. There are less than 9/8's left to be handed out and those are being held tightly. Corporations are being told no more or they're being forced to send company officers to DC to argue their cases directly.

2010 will see several nationwide rollouts of IPv6 native services on end user devices in the mobile market where there

Some time towards the end of 2011 there will be a "sky falling" moment similar to what we saw at Y2K when ISPs realise they are basically screwed and are going to have to do an expensive rush-job of deploying IPv6 over their networks in just a few short months.

Not 2011.

The problem with the 'exhaustion counters' is they're designed to push an agenda rather than present accurate results. They don't represent the real depletion rate at all.

Looking at an old blog post about a year ago the counter was at 736 da

I'm not sure which exhaustion counter you've been looking at. I've been keeping an eye on a number of exhaustion predictions for the past few years and they have been reasonably consistent (i.e. +/- 6 months). The allocation policies have been changed over the years and this has extended the amount of time we have, but not by much. Obviously exhaustion predictions can't take into account policy changes until they are at least visible on the horizon, so I do expect it'll be extended a bit more, but I'm ho

We got a year because a lot of big allocations were reclaimed. This is a (very) temporary solution; it gave enough for about a year more v4 allocations, but that kind of reclamation can not happen again because the addresses have already been reclaimed and assigned. There are some 'reserved' ranges that could be assigned, but I'd rather not be one of the people who gets them because a lot of software written over the last 30 years has had those ranges hard-coded as invalid and will drop packets from them.

your talking about Cisco's lovely IOS - routers are cheap and as long as they have the interfaces and backplanes you need will do what you want. (unless you do some ungodly evil filtering/processing of every packet)

It's the SmartNet and IOS that is the real cost - and no not all of the IOS releases from 5 years and older have ipv6 support

I would not be so sure. Most hardware manufactured recently was built with IPv6 in mind, so is probably a firmwareware upgradeable. There are hardware features, like express forwarding are hardware specific and would need to have enough space allocated for specific address lengths.

NAT/IP Masquerade has worked well for scaling IPv4 in every conceivable application to date... what makes them think it won't work for the "smart grid"? Or to put it differently, do you really want every appliance in your house directly addressable from anywhere in the world? After all, what could possibly go wrong?

NAT/IP Masquerade has worked well for scaling IPv4 in every conceivable application to date

Except, of course, that isn't really true. I've had to try and run a VPN endpoint on a NAT'd host because our ISP wasn't giving us what they'd advertised. That wasn't fun and if more people are going to want to run VPNs in the future, we're going to need more IP addresses.

IPv6 != addressable from anywhere in the world. If i have a lan that is not connect to the internet it still communicates using IPv4. There are many nice tricks in IPv6's hat that make it much better than IPv4+nat+... for any new network. Ignoring the additional space that would allow a much better layout, you have multicast which is nice for the smart grid

NAT/IP Masquerade has worked well for scaling IPv4 in every conceivable application to date

Much the same way that up to Aug 28, 2005, the New Orleans leeves were successful in holding back every conceivable rise in water level.

NAT works as long as you have simple networking needs--nothing much more than web and email. As soon as you need to use VPN, or VoIP, or try to get two or more people to play the same game behind the same firewall, it becomes readily apparent what a pain NAT is. In some cases, the application is doing all sorts of trickery to try to keep the user from noticing the issue. In others, the user is left on their own to deal with it. That doesn't even count a bunch of potential applications where the developers realized that they wouldn't be able to get around NAT, and thus never built it at all or simply toiled in obscurity.

Or to put it differently, do you really want every appliance in your house directly addressable from anywhere in the world?

NAT != Firewall. The only thing NAT provides you with over a packet filter is hiding your network topology. There is some use in that, but it comes at the expense of everything mentioned above. On balance, NAT comes out wanting. If you still really want to hide your topology, you can still use NAT on IPv6, but this should be the exception, not the rule.

NAT != Firewall. The only thing NAT provides you with over a packet filter is hiding your network topology.

Personally, I'd say that it does a little more. As long as your router drops incoming requests on the floor instead of forwarding them, it protects your LAN from port scanners. That, of course, doesn't make it a firewall, but it is a step in the right direction. There's nothing NAT can do to protect you if you click on the wrong link because whatever comes back is a response, not a request, but st

Router's don't drop requests, at least not by default. Firewalls do. Best Buy has never sold a single router, no matter what it says on the box.

Anyway, you can have your firewall drop all incoming traffic by default, opening up specific ports to specific machines as needed. It's still easier than NAT, since you don't also have to fool around with forwarding those ports.

Some applications have hardcoded ports, which makes it almost impossible to have more than one of these running at once behind the same NAT.

Router's don't drop requests, at least not by default. Firewalls do. Best Buy has never sold a single router, no matter what it says on the box.

I have a home LAN, with a router. In order to get bittorrent working correctly, I had to set up this machine with a static IP on the LAN, and tell my router to forward all rquests on the appropriate ports to that IP. I have my own domain, and I've used dynamic DNS to let me use SSH to connect to my home machine when I'm away from home. Again, I had to tell the router where to send incoming requests on Port 22. Now, you may prefer to call that a "residential gateway" as Wikipedia does, but most people would look at you funny if you called it anything other than a router.

Agreed. I never said that it did. NAT and packet filtering are two separate functions that a home router can do. Combined, they make the beginnings of a firewall, but you still need more to be properly protected.

Still, I don't see IPv6 adoption happening until you can actually have it provided by most ISPs for residential access, have it go through a cheap ADSL/cable routers, and deliver the web pages people want to access.

From what I've heard, less than 1% of the web is IPv6 accessible, less than 5% of residential internet connections allow IPv6, and very few home routers support it.

It's basically like NetBEUI or IPX - used on LANs, but not on the Internet.

Every home router I've seen does IP in software, so they ought to be updatable with a firmware upgrade. All it will take is for one major ISP to roll out IPv6 to customers and start advertising "next generation Internet" support for the others to put it on their while-we're-replacing-old-equipment list. Sure, it'll take a while, but it'll happen sometime.

Untrue. Very few residential internet connections will do *native* IPv6, but 6to4 works reasonably well. What this basically means is that you can still roll out IPv6 on your internal network and you can still reach IPv6 services on the internet, it's just that the traffic is tunnelled across your ISP inside IPv4 packets until it gets to your nearest 6to4 anycast gateway.

NAT/IP Masquerade has worked well for scaling IPv4 in every conceivable application to date...

Except it hasn't, NAT is a kludge that happens to work with simplistic client/server protocols in common use (such as HTTP). It doesn't even work well with some old standard protocols, such as FTP, without protocol-specific packet mangling.

NAT breaks pretty much all peer-to-peer protocols, which are rapidly becoming more common. Want to do VoIP, or start a direct file transfer between 2 IM clients? If you have NATs in the way then that gets unreliable. STUN makes things work a lot of the time, but even the STUN RFC admits that it is not, and cannot be, reliable. Systems like Skype try to hide these problems by abusing unfirewalled clients to route traffic between NATted clients (often without the unfirewalled user's knowledge), but the problems still exist and such "solutions" start to fall to pieces as the proportion of unfirewalled hosts dwindles.

what makes them think it won't work for the "smart grid"?

I'm guessing that the electricity supplier is going to want to be able to talk directly to your electricity meter, etc. Having a NAT in the way makes this less reliable since they won't be able to talk to it unless the meter has already initiated the connection through the NAT.

Or to put it differently, do you really want every appliance in your house directly addressable from anywhere in the world?

Do not confuse global addressability with global reachability. Assigning every device a globally unique address is valuable, even if it is on an isolated network. It makes it easier to connect 2 isolated networks together when you realise that you actually need them to not be so isolated from each other.

That said, I can think of a number of appliances that I wouldn't mind being globally reachable: My MythTV system is already globally reachable - if someone mentions a TV programme that sounds interesting, I can use the web browser on my phone to tell it to record that programme. I wouldn't mind my oven to be internet addressable, so I could remotely ask it to turn on and cook my dinner in time for me getting home. Being able to turn my heating on when I'm at the airport after coming back from holiday would be useful. Taking things a bit further, if I could ask my fridge what I'm running out of when I'm in the supermarket, I could save some hassle.

After all, what could possibly go wrong?

There are obviously security concerns to be addressed. But at the same time, designing a network so it *can't* be extended in the future seems somewhat short sighted.

do you really want every appliance in your house directly addressable from anywhere in the world? After all, what could possibly go wrong?

Part of the appeal, according to the electricity execs we've surveyed recently (study to be released soon) is the idea that people might like to know better where their money is going on a per-household-circuit level. A better dashboard, if you will. (warning: car analogy follows) It's like the dashboard of your car - you have a speedometer, tachometer, various warning lights - yet your house has nothing of the sort to show you your energy use, and you're using a similar amount of energy (car energy use a

No, the smart grid should be a completely seperate network, only backed by the Internet/public network as a fallback to primary grid network failure. And even then severe security measures should be met for such a bridge. My point still stands, the grid should be implemented on a seperate network (not completely publicly accessible), and in that case using IPv4 on both will be just fine.

I waded through the replies with a fist full of mod points hoping to mod the cluefull up... but there weren't any!

The internet and especially all the Linux nodes on the internet are designed from the ground up to have a static IP addresses and IP names and be their own DNS and own Mail smarthost and web server and....

Between the control freaks, the clueless, and the bean counters in Microsoft and the ISP's we have an internet with...

an artificial scarcity of ip numbers and ip names that the ISP's can rort a fortune out of their users for a service that costs them less to provide than the cost of billing their customers for it.

the vast majority of machines being dumb emasculated drones begging for content from the big media industries.

an a tightly controlled web where peer to peer traffic is being squeezed out.

I'm not sure how you can blame it on Microsoft. You've been able to download IPv6 support for XP from Microsoft for several years (one of my housemates was running v6 on his machine via a tunnel back around 2002/3) and Vista supports 6to4 out of the box.

an artificial scarcity of ip numbers and ip names that the ISP's can rort a fortune out of their users for a service that costs them less to provide than the cost of billing their customers for it.

the vast majority of machines being dumb emasculated drones begging for content from the big media industries.

an a tightly controlled web where peer to peer traffic is being squeezed out.

Only your first point has anything to do with IPv6. Switching to a new protocol isn't going to make your machine any less "emasculated", and P2P is being suppressed over bandwidth costs (though I'm not even sure how much that's true - I use bittorrent all the time). People who aren't running some kind of web service aren't going to see any benefit from IPv6.

Artificial? Not really - the scarcity of IPv4 addresses is real. Yes, a lot of it is caused by the rather address-wasteful way that IP subnetting works, but that is hardly an "artificial" scarcity, it is just an artefact of how the protocol works.

and ip names

Presumably by "IP names" you mean domain names? There is no scarcity here the DNS system can cope with a practically unlimited number of domain names.

that the ISP's can rort a fortune out of their users for a service that costs them less to provide than the cost of billing their customers for it.

I'm not seeing any ISPs around here ripping off their users to provide IPv4 addresses. In fact, every ISP I've

The internet and especially all the Linux nodes on the internet are designed from the ground up to have a static IP addresses and IP names and be their own DNS and own Mail smarthost and web server and....

Thirty years of experience ought to have taught the geek that almost no one wants to manage systems and services on that level.

the vast majority of machines being dumb emasculated drones begging for content from the big media industries.

Most grid control systems are on private (192.168 style) networks not connected to the general Internet for obvious reasons, and "smart-grid" meter-reading systems that are currently implemented or planned use other methods of addressing (packet-radio protocols, etc.) So, the "smart grid" argument in the article is misguided at best.

I recently redid the routing on my network to add support for IPv6 through a tunnel broker. In all actuality, if your hardware supports IPv6, its VERY trivial to setup with autoconfiguration as long as you don't have a network configuration that requires DHCPv6 (such if you want ipv6 DDNS to work).

On the flip side though, getting it setup across a tunnel broker is extremely tedious, and difficult. That being said, being able to route into the machines on my network directly is an absolute blast. Makes me

You know the most hilarious part of all this? We're currently running a protocol that the designers had NO intent of scaling. So then some of the SAME designers have turned around and come up with a scalable address scheme and protocol and NO ONE wants to use it - except for the Chinese. You know they have over a billion people over there? All of em - even the dirt farmers - seem to have a freakin computer that wants to hack my bank account!

I believe TCP, UDP and others are the transport protocols. IP is not a transport protocol. Just as the summary says:

Networking giant Cisco sees IP (internet protocol) as the right transport and IPv6 as the logical choice for addressing.

IP is used for addressing, doesn't matter whether its v4 or v6. It, however, is *not* the right transport because it isn't a transport method in the first place.

And as a response to someone who said that MS is pushing IPv6....Apple is as well by including it in OS X for a long time now. That doesn't mean you have to use it though. I did hear recently that Comcast will be providing IPv6 addres

Well if you are with a cable or mobile ISP it might even be easier to get propper IPv6 than IPv4. Just set up a tunnel to a tunnel broker like Sixxs for example. It will even work through NAT and you'll get 2^80 IPv6 adresses.

I mean even today there are ISPs which only give you NAT. ISPs which filter your IPv4 traffic or inject additional packets to keep you from using IPv4. Many ISPs also only give you one dynamic IP-address and charge more if you want more of them.

How the hell did you get from 'ipv4 is hard to use' to everyone using gmail? That's quite a logical leap. And ipv6 won't change that one bit.

I can log into my computer at home. Any of them, in fact, as I have 16 IPs.. but then I have a half decent ISP. If it matters that much to you get one of those don't complain that for $5 a month your ISP uses dynamic IPs and doesn't like you running servers. The situation will be *exactly* the same with ipv6, by the way, if cheap ISPs ever move to it (and if they

Well actually moving now makes a lot of sense as you will be one of the first to be on IPv6. Nobody cares what you do on IPv6 so you can easily just run FTP-Servers and be sure that nobody except the people you tell that will ever find you. You can do Bittorrent without any problems, in fact Sixxs.net is having it's own IPv6-only tracker. IPv6 still is free.

And not many people are as lucky as you actually having an ISP giving you 16 IPs. In Germany for example you'll have to get a commercial account and tho

If Cisco manufactures those "smart grid" (corp bullshit word) devices, nobody will be able to afford them, thus eliminating any requirement for IPv6.

I like how Cisco whines about IPv6, but let's face it; They charge a bunch of money for you to actually be able to use IPv6 in most of their products. Even the modern 3750-E series switches requires a multi-thousand dollar license to support IPv6, and the list of caveats is huge! Half the crap that you do with IPv4 won't even work with their IP Services imag

Yeh, cause I'm going to directly attach all my devices to the Internet. Some idiot in marketting doesn't get it.Using protocols like XMPP, SIP, etc... the devices will connect to servers for session initiation. Given low bandwidth situations where there are settings like "Turn oven on at 5:12pm", messages will be passed without the need for firewall traversal directly from the server which already have open connections to the devices.

For higher bandwidth situations, like a camera in the fridge that lets you

I'm with you on house (unless you're a geek you don't need more than one IP) but community? That would be messy. It'll happen - carrier grade NAT will happen long before ipv6 (and is happening already, on mobile networks).. but it'll still be messy.

When IPv7 standard is release we will talk about how no one will fill up all the address in IPv6 and there is no reason to switch to IPv7. When the IPv8 standard is released then we will talk about how easy it actually was to switch to IPv6 in the first place so there is no reason to stick around on IPv7. Maybe after IPv9 we will hear the end of IPv6 but it is highly unlikely.

Sure, IPv6 allows for far more individual addresses than we'll probably ever use. The idea is that, unlike with IPv4, we won't be forced to use every single one of those addresses. Instead we'll have the freedom to group them in ways which make sense--like purely hierarchical assignments, which greatly simplify routing, and unique, locally auto-generated host addresses. It's sort of like the way the name "John Smith" (which is hardly unique) consists of around 47.5 bits, assuming 4.75 bits per letter (26 le

If i'm not mistaken, isn't there some part of the IPv6 standard (perhaps private nets?) where addressing works by having hosts pick a completely random number and use that, since the chances of collision are so slim?

ipv6 has 128 bits, but for RA to work your home router has to have a/64 even if you only have one machine.. so that's half of them gone.. ISPs are supposed to allocate you a/48 (mine does) again, if you only have one machine that's wasteful.

The top couple of bits are used for address type, so you're down to 46 bits of actual information. Still a lot, but nowhere near the 'atoms in the universe' idea.

10: you ping anything on a daily basis, you use a script
9: and you think they will sell it to you cheap??
8: header compression is soooo last year
7: then why are you not running Word95 across your organisation?
6: anybody with brains has put "IPV6 compatible" on the spec list for the last 10 years
5: somebody should invent a way of shorthand writing those adresses... oh, wait...
4: 95% of what I use my car for, I could do in a Ford T model
3: yep, Unfortunately I am not a Telco, are you?
2: or, th